Where's The Beef?
That is what some Truman Annex residents are asking about TAMPOA's assurances that it owns Southard Street. It seems that there are still some TAMPOA members who are wondering if TAMPOA really has proof that it owns Southard Streeet. They are wondering whether there is "specific documentation" that exists that shows this to be the case and have asked TAMPOA to show it to them.
According to Tom Tukey, President of TAMPOA, "We own all the streets within the HPRD (Truman Annex) including Southard and anyone, including Commissioners, who recklessly states otherwise may be committing slander of title." Slander of Title? Oh, please! Take me back to the middle ages of American or English law.(This had to be one of those legalisms from TAMPOA legal). Well, of course, the City has denied that TAMPOA owns Southard, so maybe the City is slandering the title too, among all its other alleged misdeeds. And this is the stuff of which lawsuits are made and money is needlessly spent. Assert, counter-assert, allege, counter-allege -- the "dance" goes on.
From our perspective and the perspective of many Annex residents, the real question is "when will we see the beef?" If TAMPOA owns the street, then let's see the hard evidence. Mr. Tukey says it's there, but if it is, why are we not looking at it? Isn't it in the interest of everyone to get this matter over with?
What we don't understand is why, if as Tukey asserts, ownership of Southard is a done deal, why TAMPOA has not filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on this issue -- asking the Court to award a judgment to TAMPOA without a trial because the fact of ownership is not seriously in dispute. In fact, if TAMPOA owns Southard, and TAMPOA has the "beef" on that, why has TAMPOA not filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on the whole lawsuit? This could have been done months (or years) ago, and we would have an answer by now.
What irritates a lot of people is that who actually owns Southard street is just a side issue in the whole dispute with the City -- an issue the City raised among it's assorted, and sometimes flakey, defenses. And the TAMPOA lawyers have let the City get away with this for so long without moving for Summary Judgment. Why? Because TAMPOA wanted to be kind, generous, good hearted, and liked to spend money? We don't think so. TAMPOA lawyers have now spent a bunch of money and taken some 34 depositions. Now what? When are they going to the next and obvious step?
The real -- and the only real -- issue in the lawsuit is whether the City violated it's agreement with TAMPOA. This is a fairly simple question and should not take months or cost a million dollars to to put before the judge to decide.
As for the City, we think the City is bluffing, just as it did in the Duck Tours case, and Key West Citizens eventually are going to be led down the primrose path to nowhere and loss of the waterfront property by this Commission, but in the interim, the City has played a masterful game of Poker with very few good cards and a little rope-a-dope thrown in for good measure. You've gotta love the theater.
According to Tom Tukey, President of TAMPOA, "We own all the streets within the HPRD (Truman Annex) including Southard and anyone, including Commissioners, who recklessly states otherwise may be committing slander of title." Slander of Title? Oh, please! Take me back to the middle ages of American or English law.(This had to be one of those legalisms from TAMPOA legal). Well, of course, the City has denied that TAMPOA owns Southard, so maybe the City is slandering the title too, among all its other alleged misdeeds. And this is the stuff of which lawsuits are made and money is needlessly spent. Assert, counter-assert, allege, counter-allege -- the "dance" goes on.
From our perspective and the perspective of many Annex residents, the real question is "when will we see the beef?" If TAMPOA owns the street, then let's see the hard evidence. Mr. Tukey says it's there, but if it is, why are we not looking at it? Isn't it in the interest of everyone to get this matter over with?
What we don't understand is why, if as Tukey asserts, ownership of Southard is a done deal, why TAMPOA has not filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on this issue -- asking the Court to award a judgment to TAMPOA without a trial because the fact of ownership is not seriously in dispute. In fact, if TAMPOA owns Southard, and TAMPOA has the "beef" on that, why has TAMPOA not filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on the whole lawsuit? This could have been done months (or years) ago, and we would have an answer by now.
What irritates a lot of people is that who actually owns Southard street is just a side issue in the whole dispute with the City -- an issue the City raised among it's assorted, and sometimes flakey, defenses. And the TAMPOA lawyers have let the City get away with this for so long without moving for Summary Judgment. Why? Because TAMPOA wanted to be kind, generous, good hearted, and liked to spend money? We don't think so. TAMPOA lawyers have now spent a bunch of money and taken some 34 depositions. Now what? When are they going to the next and obvious step?
The real -- and the only real -- issue in the lawsuit is whether the City violated it's agreement with TAMPOA. This is a fairly simple question and should not take months or cost a million dollars to to put before the judge to decide.
As for the City, we think the City is bluffing, just as it did in the Duck Tours case, and Key West Citizens eventually are going to be led down the primrose path to nowhere and loss of the waterfront property by this Commission, but in the interim, the City has played a masterful game of Poker with very few good cards and a little rope-a-dope thrown in for good measure. You've gotta love the theater.
posted by Conchette at 1:11 PM
8 Comments:
I'm sure you're proud of giving the Truman Annex haters still more ammunition in their fruitless class-war against the Annex. Continuing to make baseless statements about how there are "many" Annex residents as ill-advised as you are about the situation you try to comprehend, but fall short almost every time.
I'm sure you're thrilled when the anti-Truman Annex bloggers gratefully point to your blog as a confirmation of how screwed up our neighborhood is (when in fact you speak for only a few other such ill-informed residents).
And I know you're getting off by me responding to your trolling post. Not sure why I bother, since I know for a fact that you don't post every response.
If this one sees the light of day here, it'll be a miracle.
This blog illustrates your lack of knowledge of the city's position in regards Southard St. Since you have obviously never read the city's position in their attempt to dismiss the lawsuit you have little idea as to what Tampoa's legal strategy is at this point (and probably could care less). It is equally obvious that you were not at the annual meeting when the framework of our legal stategy was explained.
Why don't you do a little homework before you start complaining? Your empty tirades are getting tiresome.
Unfortunately it is you who don't have the facts. We do understand the City's position, unlike some others. Unlike you, we have done our homework. We have been to the Clerk of Courts office and have read the entire file. We doubt if you have done so or you would not be makeing the uninformed statements you have made. And, of course, we have other sources closer to the litigation. It is you that need to do your homework instead of puting out whining bits of uninformed drivel to which you are not willing to put even a pen name.
To Anonymous who thinks we cater to the Annex haters: We don't. We publish news and opinion. People make up their own minds. It's not our job to think for people. If people hate Truman Annex, that hatred developed long before we began to comment. As you know, much of the bad rap Truman Annex has in the City was created by the TAMPOA Board and its silly front page ads, a mistake the TAMPOA Board President now acknowledges. And if you didn't know that dislike of the Annex (which, BTW, we believe is as irrational as many of your comments)existed before now, you too have fallen into the trap of apparent gated community isolation that those who dislike the Annex complain about.
As far as your so called "anti-Annex bloggers" it seems that you are doing the same sterreotying that you accuse these bloggers of doing. In fact, there are no "anit-Annex bloggers." Bloggers, like other journalists, form their opinions from the events and people they cover. If those they cover act the fool, then a blogger will reflect that in her commentary. If those they cover act wisely and rationally, the blogger's commentary will reflect that. People bloggers cover are the ones who are really in control as far as shaping the bloggers' commentary. That is what makes blogs interesting, and is why you continue to read.
So, there, now you have your miricle.
If you in fact read the city's objection (and I am doubtful by the lack of credible evidence in your blogs), it dealt with police powers and not ownership of the street. They at this point are not allegeing that they own the street, we are.
You didn't read the entire Court file. If you only skimed it or were told about it, you need to go read the court file -- CAREFULLY!
Of course the City is not NOW claiming they own the street. How could they when Discovery is showing they have no hard evidence to back up that implied claim?
That was not the point of our post. The point of our post was: Why hasn't TAMPOA moved for Summary Judgment? What is TAMPOA waiting for if it's so sure it is going to prevail on the ownership and agreement violation issues? TAMPOA should have gotten on with it and moved for Summary Judgment a long long time ago, but TAMPOA didn't.
The delay has given rise to doubt about whether TAMPOA has the evidence to prove ownership. TAMPOA may well own the street and we think TAMPOA does. But proving that ownership by a preponderence of the evidence may be a different matter. And that is what the court will require.
The original suit filed by TAMPOA(not yet heard in Circuit Court)is for declaratory judgement. It is the easiest way to have the court say that the contract has been breached and that the Ciy must now immediately abide by the contract (under order of the court).
The federal suit is equally simple in that it merely asks for a ruling. It is designed to clarify the Navy easement.
All of this reviewed at the annual meeting and handouts were given as well as a Power Point presentation.
Conchette, if your critics want to dismiss the many (yes, many) Truman Annex residents that dissent in the actions of the TAMPOA Board by calling them "uninformed", then they only have the Board and themselves to blame because of their failure to inform us. Perhaps the only Beef that they can offer is Bullcrap.
Post a Comment
<< Home